Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Shroud of Turin Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 01:34:42 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article cms@dragon writes: >... Indeed, I've been in few Protestant churches or Protestant >homes without _some_ visual images. For example, I've seen few >Protestant churches without a cross on top of the church or on a door. >The cross is a visual image; are there any Protestant churches that >deny even a cross? The only difference, as I see it, is that Catholic >images are much more elaborate, and Protestant images more sparse or >abstract. A Church, whether elaborately ornate, or bare, is still a >physical building wherein one goes to worship God. I would submit >that the church itself is a visible image that most people, Protestant >or Catholic, would be hardpressed to give up. I took a course in >Humanities through the Arts in which one of my topics of study was >church architecture. You should notice the similarities and >differences between Protestant and Catholic architecture (inside and >out). It's fascinating. The point is that Protestants need visual >images to connect to God, too; they're images are more subtle -- you >must look for them harder. Well, you don't have to look for them all that hard really. The cross tends to be hung in prominence. Back 20 years or so ago we had Salman's (sp?) "Head of Christ" hanging above the pulpit. (Now it's moved downstairs.) Banners often decorate the walls. As you say, the symbols are more subtle. Indeed, the traditional steeple which "points the way to God" is a symbol. As I have pointed out before, we seem to define ourselves now, not by what we have in common but what our differences are, and we over-emphasize them. For instance, in theory, we don't believe in trans-substantiation, and yet the elements are treated with a great deal of reverance. Noone would dream of throwing out the leftover bread or grape juice. The elements are sanctified. In theory, we don't believe in "Holy Water". (One of my pastors as part of the ritual used to pour water into the baptismal font from a pitcher, as if to emphasize that the water didn't mysteriously appear in the font.) And yet, the water in the font isn't poured down the drain. I picked up the habit of taking it outside and pouring it on the lawn from one of our oldest members. (That same pastor was extremely wary of symbols. He used to change the order of worship around so people wouldn't think of it as sacred. And yet, he knew the worth of them. While he was with us, we starte the tradtion of a "Chrismon Tree". This is a "Christmas Tree" where are the decorations are simple symbols of Christianity, (a cross, a fish, an anchor cross, a manger, an alpha/omega etc.) during advent, he'd explain the meanings of the different symbols to the children. The idea is not that a symbol is bad. The idea is to avoid worshipping the symbol, rather than what it symbolizes.) >> My pastor this last Sunday brought one of her favorite paintings for use >> in the sermon. It shows Jesus walking on the road to Emmaus with two >> disciples. As she pointed out, the painting isn't historically >> accurate, it shows Jesus and the disciples walking down a shady lane in >> a forest of maple trees. The key, is that the painting communicates to >> an audiance who can identify with a shady forest lane. It communicates >> the peace and calm the disciples may have felt walking with Jesus. > I have this painting hanging in my living room. I like it because it >appears to be a man and a woman walking next to Jesus carefully >listening to his teachings. If we're talking about the same painting. >If it's Emaus, I could be wrong about one of them being a woman. >However, I put it on my wall precisely because the picture contained a >woman as well as a man listening carefully to Christ; I had in mind >Mary who "took the better portion." Indeed, the very one. She also brought it in three years ago, (there's that old lectionary again! ;-) ), at that time, she pointed out that one of the figures appears to be a woman. She also pointed out that there is nothing in Luke to contradict this. The two are not of the eleven, (they go back and tell the eleven). Only one of them is explicitly identified, (Cleopas). There is no mention of who the other one is at all, (although both supposedly spoke). The two were staying together at Emmaus, and invited Jesus to stay with them. (Can't you see this being a happily married couple of disciples?) Nancy pointed out that if they were a couple, there would be no need to identify the second disciple, (It would be Cleopas and the wife of Cleopas), and certainly there is a fine tradition of Biblical authors not explicitly mentioning (or counting*) women. So, while there is no requirement that the second disciple must have been a woman, similarly there is no requirement that (she) wasn't. (Go back and read the passage, see if it doesn't read well as a married couple.) * For example, when Jesus fed the 5000, they were 5000 *men*, (not counting the women and children) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton